Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Not’ Category

Are you ready to laugh?

Nelson Shanks, the artist who painted the official portrait of President William Jefferson Clinton, just revealed that he intentionally included a “shadow” in the painting to represent the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the shadow it cast over the Clinton presidency. <Yahoo News, link, via Philadelphia Daily News>

If you look at the left-hand side of it, there’s a mantel in the Oval Office, I put a shadow coming into the painting, and it does two things. It actually literally represents a shadow from a blue dress I had on a mannequin, that I had there while I was painting it, but not when he was there. It is also a bit of a metaphor in that it represents a shadow on the office he held, or on him.

A shadow looms...

A shadow looms…

Not only did the artist sneak a shadow in, he also apparently left off Mr. Clinton’s wedding ring…

And there is one more thing about this painting that I find amusing, and that is the way Slick Willie is standing, hand on hip, turned towards the shadow: to me it looks as though he is standing at a urinal, about to take a piss.

Clinton at urinalDid the artist intend this as well? He has not said so, but I find this possibility compelling given that Bill Clinton metaphorically pissed all over the White House during his time there, and all over the Rule of Law and national security.

Shanks had another unkind thing to say about Clinton:

The reality is he’s probably the most famous liar of all time.

Uh, no, Mr. Shanks, Bill Clinton, although a legendary liar of the highest order, has been replaced by Barack Hussein Obama, the most dangerous and destructive liar ever to inhabit the United States, let alone the White House.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Our government is truly sick, and not just in the Democrat party. Long-time Senator Orrin Hatch, a Republican, seems to have been John Roberts-ed in regard to his vote in favor of mr. Obama’s nominee for Attorney General — the top law enforcement official in the country — despite her testimony in support of the president’s illegal and unconstitutional Executive-branch amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants inside the United States, an act so unlawful that even he said he did not have the power to do it several years ago (he still doesn’t).

First, let’s review Ms. Lynch’s answers to direct questions about whether she respects our nation’s laws <WND, link:

The first contentious exchange occurred when Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., asked whether Lynch thought immigrants entering the U.S. illegally had a right to claim U.S. citizenship under equal protection laws, claiming citizenship was their “civil right.”

I believe the right and obligation to work is a right of everyone who comes here regardless of status, and I would prefer people to be in the workforce than not.

Sessions pressed: “Does an illegal immigrant have a right to demand a job? Do you think a person here illegally has a right to work in the United States when the law says it’s illegal to hire someone who is here illegally?”

We want everyone in the United States to be able to seek employment.

Sessions asked further: “If a person comes here illegally and has a right to get a Social Security card and a work authorization, is an employer still free to give preference to hiring someone who is here legally? Would you take action against an employer who did not hire someone given a work permit under the president’s executive actions?”

I would look forward to speaking with you and working with you as we try to address this point in the future.

These answers are worse than inadequate.

They are the equivalent of saying that our nation’s laws do not matter, that the Rule of Law does not matter.

And a person who has is interviewing for the job of United States Attorney General who makes such a statement absolutely cannot and should not be confirmed as Attorney General.

“HI, MY NAME IS _______ AND I WANT TO BE THE NATION’S ATTORNEY GENERAL, BUT DON’T BELIEVE IN THE RULE OF LAW. PLEASE CONFIRM ME FOR THE POSITION, THANK YOU.”

And yet:

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to confirm U.S. Attorney Loretta E. Lynch as the next attorney general, paving the way for her likely confirmation by the full Senate, which is expected to vote on her nomination in the next week or two.

Sens. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) voted with the committee’s nine Democrats to approve Lynch’s nomination. <Washington Post, link>

What world are we living in, where Republican Senators could actually vote in favor of a candidate who is against the Rule of Law.

Orrin Hatch looks scared -- is he hearing footsteps?

Orrin Hatch looks scared — is he hearing footsteps?

Orrin Hatch, alleged Republican, had this to say in support of her nomination:

The case against her nomination, as far as I can tell, essentially ignores her professional career and focuses solely on about six hours that she spent before this committee on Jan. 28.

Uh, no, Orrin, no one is ignoring her professional career, and you know it. The simple fact is that she supports an executive branch that is behaving in direct violation of the Constitution, and you know this too.

Why are you doing this?

Do you hear Obama’s footsteps, as John Roberts likely did when he affirmed the disaster known as Obamacare?

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) gives us all a very clear message on why the Lynch nomination must be opposed, and you need to listen, Mr. Orrin Hatch:

The Senate cannot confirm someone to this post who is going to support and advance a scheme that violates our Constitution and eviscerates congressional authority.  Congress makes the laws, not the president—as every schoolchild knows.

Read Full Post »

What a study in contrasts, George W. Bush, and Barack Hussein Obama, particularly when it comes to the issue of leadership.

In simple terms, if you work for Obama, you can be sure that at some point he will sell you down the river and disown you when the going gets tough, whereas if you work for Bush, he will stand by you (and his own decisions) in tough circumstances.

This came to mind with the news this week of the Senate’s intended expose on CIA interrogation methods in the years after 9/11 (emphasis added).

The report is said to assert that the C.I.A. misled Mr. Bush and his White House about the nature, extent and results of brutal techniques like waterboarding, and some of his former administration officials privately suggested seizing on that to distance themselves from the controversial program, according to people involved in the discussion. But Mr. Bush and his closest advisers decided that “we’re going to want to stand behind these guys,” as one former official put it. <New York Times, link>

Wow, what a difference: instead of being a thin-skinned worm and ducking responsibility by saying “Boo hoo, the CIA misled me..”, President Bush is going full-tilt the other way and standing together with the people who served him and their country in a time of war.

Said Mr. Bush:

We’re fortunate to have men and women who work hard at the C.I.A. serving on our behalf. These are patriots and whatever the report says, if it diminishes their contributions to our country, it is way off base.

Now that is what leadership sounds like.

Let’s take a tour of how Barack Obama handles things when his policies come under fire.

Obamacare rollout

On the now-legendary Hinderberg-like rollout of healthcare.gov, the Obamacare website that cost nearly $1 billion and yet crashed and burned (and, by the way, it is STILL NOT FIXED):

Kathleen Sebelius said President Barack Obama didn’t hear that there may be problems with the sign-up portal for his signature health care law until it went live on October 1. That’s when the site nosedived into a technical abyss. <CNN, link>

Way to go, Kathleen — you carried out that lie beautifully, at your own terrible expense. Nice boss you had there!

IRS Targeting of Republican Groups

President Obama insisted Thursday that he knew nothing about the internal investigation into the IRS’ practice of singling out conservative groups for special scrutiny before it was made public, as he moved to name a new director for the embattled agency. <Fox News, link>

I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the (inspector general) report..

Hey, mr. Obama, we believe you, yes we do.

NSA Spying

President Barack Obama was unaware of the National Security Agency’s spying on German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other world leaders until the operation was discovered through an internal administration review, The Wall Street Journal reported. <The Blaze, link>

Isn’t it amazing how little mr. Obama knows about what his staff is up to? But of course he does know, and by pretending not to, he shows no connection to his team in any way, shape, or form, and stands as a man apart from not just his loyal lieutenants but from this entire nation.

Read Full Post »

I saw this headline in the LA Times today and cringed (link):

With executive action, Obama risks losing Chief Justice John Roberts

As the sentence makes plain, Justice Roberts has been “with” Obama ever since he shocked the world and voted to affirm the so-called individual mandate in the ACA by retroactively labeling the law’s penalty a “tax”.

That Roberts did so makes me sick to this day, and to this day I wonder what was done to him in order for him to cast that deciding vote in favor of the most damaging law to come along in a generation.

And so now, with Obama’s attempt at bypassing the entire legislative branch and giving amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, newspaper headlines fret over whether Obama will “lose” Roberts.

To which I say, Roberts should never have sold out his duty and honor by siding with Obama in the first place.

Read Full Post »

Recently I wrote about mr. Obama’s default reaction, in all its shame, for every crisis that happen on his watch: that he is “angry” about it, or “seething” as the New York Times dutifully reported last week, etc., etc.

Columnist Charles Krauthammer recently published the following piece, and I loved every word, so enjoy.

<Chicago Tribune, link>

The president is upset. Very upset. Frustrated and angry. Seething about the government’s handling of Ebola, said a front-page headline in The New York Times.

There’s only one problem with this pose, so obligingly transcribed for him by the Times. It’s his government. He’s president. Has been for six years. Yet Barack Obama reflexively insists on playing the shocked outsider when something goes wrong within his own administration.

IRS? “It’s inexcusable, and Americans are right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it,” he thundered in May 2013 when the story broke of the agency targeting conservative groups. “I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency, but especially in the IRS.”

Except that within nine months, Obama had grown far more tolerant, retroactively declaring this to be a phony scandal without “a smidgen of corruption.”

Obamacare rollout? “Nobody is more frustrated by that than I am,” said an aggrieved Obama about the botching of the central element of his signature legislative achievement. “Nobody is madder than me.”

Veterans Affairs scandal? Presidential chief of staff Denis McDonough explained: “Secretary Eric Shinseki said … that he’s mad as hell and the president is madder than hell.” A nice touch — taking anger to the next level.
lRelated Ebola vs. civil liberties

The president himself declared: “I will not stand for it.” But since the administration itself said the problem was long-standing, indeed predating Obama, this means he had stood for it for 51/2 years.

The one scandal where you could credit the president with genuine anger and obliviousness involves the recent breaches of White House Secret Service protection. The Washington Post described the first lady and president as “angry and upset,” and no doubt they were. But the first Secret Service scandal — the hookers of Cartagena in Colombia — evinced this from the president: “If it turns out that some of the allegations that have been made in the press are confirmed, then of course I’ll be angry.” An innovation in ostentatious distancing: future conditional indignation.

These shows of calculated outrage — and thus distance — are becoming not just unconvincing but unamusing. In our system, the president is both head of state and head of government. Obama seems to enjoy the monarchial parts, but when it comes to the actual business of running government, he shows little interest and even less aptitude.

His principal job, after all, is to administer the government and to get the right people to do it. (That’s why we typically send governors rather than senators to the White House.) That’s called management. Obama had never managed anything before running for the biggest management job on Earth. It shows.

What makes the problem even more acute is that Obama represents not just the party of government but a grandiose conception of government as the prime mover of social and economic life. The very theme of his presidency is that government can and should be trusted to do great things. And therefore society should be prepared to hand over large chunks of its operations — from health care (one-sixth of the economy) to carbon regulation down to free contraception — to the central administrative state.

But this presupposes a Leviathan not just benign but competent. When it then turns out that vast, faceless bureaucracies tend to be incapable, inadequate, hopelessly inefficient and often corrupt, Obama resorts to expressions of angry surprise.

He must. He’s not simply protecting his own political fortunes. He’s trying to protect faith in the entitlement state by portraying its repeated failures as shocking anomalies.

Unfortunately, the pretense has the opposite effect. It produces not reassurance but anxiety. Obama’s determined detachment conveys the feeling that nobody’s home. No one leading. Not even from behind.

A poll conducted two weeks ago found that 64 percent of likely voters (in competitive races) think that “things in the U.S. feel like they are out of control.” This is one degree of anxiety beyond thinking the country is on the wrong track. That’s been negative for years, and it’s a reflection of failed policies that in principle can be changed. Regaining control, on the other hand, is a far dicier proposition.

With events in the saddle and a sense of disorder growing — the summer border crisis, Ferguson, the rise of the Islamic State, Ebola — the nation expects from the White House not miracles but competence. At a minimum, mere presence. An observer presidency with its bewildered bystander pose only adds to the unease.

Read Full Post »

Barack Obama and his regime have allowed a virulent fast-killing disease for which there is no cure to take root inside the United States.

Ebola has been in Texas, Ohio, and now it is in New York City.

But note the Orwellian manipulation in the reporting of this horrible news:

NEW YORK (AP) — A doctor who became New York City’s first Ebola patient was praised for getting treatment immediately upon showing symptoms, and health officials stressed that the nation’s most populous city need not fear his wide-ranging travel in the days before his illness began. <Associated Press / Yahoo News, link>

Amazing isn’t it, how fast the writer of this news story shifts into propaganda by jumping into a positive message about the patient being “praised” and how health officials are saying that people “should not worry”.

But should we worry?

Read this next part:

Mayor Bill de Blasio and Gov. Andrew Cuomo urged residents not to be alarmed by the doctor’s diagnosis Thursday, even as they described him riding the subway, taking a cab and bowling since returning to New York from Guinea a week ago. De Blasio said all city officials followed “clear and strong” protocols in their handling and treatment of him.

Well now, I feel so much safer that De Blasio is telling us not to worry, don’t you?

Ebola passing through the subway system, a taxi, and a bowling alley.

I don’t see any possibility of an outbreak, do you?

The real question on Ebola is whether we as citizens are going to swallow these false assurances or not.

Read Full Post »

In the most recent Ebola story I saw I came across this paragraph and could only shake my head:

The Ebola outbreak in West Africa, and its arrival in the United States, is the latest in a cascade of crises that have stretched Mr. Obama’s national security staff thin. As the White House scrambled to stop the spread of Ebola beyond a handful of cases, officials were also grappling with an escalating military campaign against the Islamic State, the specter of a new Cold War with Russia over Ukraine, and the virtual disintegration of Yemen, which has been a seedbed for Al Qaeda. <New York Times, link>

This is what failed leadership looks like, or perhaps what the Enemy Within looks like: a “cascade of crises“.

Either way, our nation has been pummeled by the Obama regime, and it is not even over yet.

How much worse?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »